Posted on 02/18/2025 11:33:28 AM PST by Macho MAGA Man
On Tuesday Chief Justice Roberts ordered fired Biden holdover Hampton Dellinger to respond to the Trump Administration’s application to the Supreme Court.
Hampton Dellinger must respond by Wednesday.
President Trump on Sunday filed an emergency appeal with the US Supreme Court after corrupt Obama judge Amy Berman Jackson reinstated Hampton Dellinger as head of the Office of Special Counsel.
President Trump fired Hampton Dellinger, Special Counsel of the Office of Special Counsel (not to be confused with a special counsel hired as a federal prosecutor) a couple of weeks ago.
Trump appointed Veterans Affairs Secretary Doug Collins to take over Dellinger’s job as the Special Counsel.
Shortly after the firing, Judge Amy Berman Jackson sided with Hampton Dellinger, issued an administrative stay, and allowed him to keep his job.
“Trump must allow Dellinger to continue to have “access” to the agency’s resources and cannot “recognize the authority of any other person as Special Counsel” while the order remains in effect, Jackson wrote,” according to Politico.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
my understanding is jackson pulled a fast one by issuing an administrative stay
which is different than a tro
and is not appealable to the circuit
hence the emergency request to the USSC
i view getting a USSC hearing a good thing
Wouldn’t it be nice if Roberts played nice for once?
does Trump have a plan b
if ruling goes against him?
What is SC Hampton doing right now? Is he making trouble? Is Trump administration investigating him? I hope so.
Dellinger faced scrutiny due to his past association with Hunter Biden. He worked at Boies Schiller Flexner, the same law firm Hunter Biden used for assistance with Burisma Holdings.
If he goes back he shouldn’t be able to do anything until he’s fully investigated.
He’ll wish he never went back to work.
I'm not a judicial expert, but I would imagine whether it was Roberts or Thomas, that Dillinger would have been told to respond within a specific time period.
Probably a Plan B, C, D and E.
I seem to have not been invited to the meetings where these were discussed in any detail.
It comes down in the end to refuse obedience to Court orders. After that, things depend on control of who pays the police and military forces.
But we know by now that Roberts is compromised. Perhaps he will rule in favor of the Trump administration, and we can avoid some of the other nastier pathways.
SOP. You have petitioner bring his paper in to the court to be heard, and the court gives the opposition a chance to state the other side of it.
Exactly.... the way things are supposed to be done (as opposed to the ex parte rulings done last week by the kangaroo courts that clearly had it in for Trump).
Yes, my opinion resembles your remark.
This is THE showdown for the MAGA hoedown.
If the ruling goes against the President on separation of powers.....well , we are on the road to civil war II.
He also knows he is on Epstein’s list and is worried about his job.
Yes, Roberts appears to be fast tracking the issue, rather than let Dellinger keep his job while Jackson slow walks the decision for months on end, and then rules against Trump.
Trump’s position is that the President has ultimate authority to fire anyone in the Executive Branch, and now Dellinger is going to have to explain - to John Roberts, not Amy Berman Jackson - why the POTUS does not have the authority to fire him. And he must do so by tomorrow. I think SCOTUS squashes Jackson, and the left will scream.
Hard to say.
CJ Roberts knows that, going all the way back to 1803 and Marbury v. Madison, this case of Dellinger has an eerie resemblance to Marbury.
In 1801, outgoing President John Adams appointed William Marbury to the position of Justice of the Peace two days before incoming President Thomas Jefferson took office. Then Secretary of State John Marshall affixed the seal of the United States on Marbury's commission and then sent it off to be delivered.
The commission sat in the Secretary of State's office when incoming Secretary of State James Madison took office. Madison kept the commission and refused to deliver it to Marbury, claiming that the office is vacant since the commission wasn't delivered, freeing President Jefferson to nominate someone from his own party to the office.
Marbury sued Madison, saying that the commission was his and he's the rightful Justice of the Peace. Marbury filed his suit directly with the Supreme Court, relying on the Judiciary Act of 1789 authorizing the Supreme Court to issue writs of mandamus. Marbury wanted a writ of mandamus ordering Madison to give him his commission to the office.
By the time the case was heard in the Supreme Court, John Marshall was now the Chief Justice. After hearing arguments, Marshall ruled that Madison did indeed illegally withhold the commission from Marbury. However, Marshall refused to order Madison to give Marbury the commission ruling the law authorizing the Supreme Court to issue writs of mandamus to be an unconstitutional expansion of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction.
This ruling let President Jefferson refuse to accept Adams' confirmed Justice of the Peace and nominate someone of his own.
Now we have the case of President Trump wanting to remove Biden's Special Counsel and nominate someone of his own. Will Roberts follow Marshall and rule that the law limiting the cause for firing a Special Counsel is an unconstitutional restriction on the jurisdiction of the Executive?
-PJ
As bad as Roberts is on some things, he is good on anti-administrative state issues. My bet is that the Supreme Court takes this and uses it to radically reign in administrative state power.
I don’t even understand why the courts ask the FIRED bureaucrat why he should not be FIRED.
Get out, Dillinger. Clean your desk. Go make some soap on a rope. But leave. You’re done. Your duties and your salary are gone.
President Trump is ultimately going to win at SCOTUS when it comes to Hampton Dellinger.
POTUS has full, plenary power to make all personnel decisions in the executive branch—period.
Great discussing that and the lower-court judicial #resistance with @JoeGummTV on @MeritStreet.#resistance with @JoeGummTV on @MeritStreet. pic.twitter.com/UxNBTb6k4D— Josh Hammer (@josh_hammer) February 17, 2025
Bkmk
Thank you for explaining Marbury vs. Madison and how it may influence Chief Justice Robert’s thinking on this case.
Because there are bigger cases coming and he needs to give a win to Trump so he appears to be impartial when he lowers the boom on something far larger.
If you want to see more about Marshall's ruling on interfering with the President's political powers, see here.
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.